Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad News For You
899 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 36 Newer→ Last
-
Just thinking, in reply to
I feel sick.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Me too.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I trust there will be very strong recommendations for increased resourcing for a major upgrade in earthquake risk and hazard assessments throughout NZ, and they will be well received and accepted by Government at all levels . . .
As these kinds of recommendations haven't been welcomed by Government in the past, especially in Canterbury, I assume that your trust is based on something more tangible than, say, Gerry Brownlee's ongoing references to "geodata".
Until we know more about this kind of information, and it's made freely available to those whose lives are sometimes drastically affected by whatever conclusions are drawn from it, we're still dealing with a risk-averse* culture of self-interest and complacency.
Currently CERA are inclined to become more exercised over a contractor entering the CBD exclusion zone with a dog in their vehicle than they are over the plight of a wheelchair-bound 71-year-old woman in Bexley who must take out a mortgage (if she can even get one) after being driven from her freehold home.
*Politespeak for arse-covering.
-
merc,
Herald editorial today,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/christchurch-earthquake/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502981&objectid=10760584
These questions need to be asked, who are these social scientists (sic) who predicted panic, and why were they the arbiter of the fate of so many? -
ChrisW, in reply to
I'm referring essentially to assessments of the earthquake-generating end of the system (the current subject of the Commission hearings and commentary) where my "trust" expresses a goodly amount of confidence that the surprises and severity and huge human and financial cost of these earthquakes will make a major difference nationally over the next few years and more. Admittedly that must also include an element of 'hope' of lesser standard than that 'sure and certain hope of the resurrection'.
I see Gerry Brownlee's current "geodata" and the general arse-covering as relating more to the other end of the system, the impacts of those earthquakes on buildings, infrastructure and lives. So concerning geodata on the top tens of metres of ground conditions, and also structural engineering, regulation, planning, emergency management and so on, including the critical factors in the deaths and damage (CTV building in particular) in the immediacy and aftermath.
Good interview with GNS’s Kelvin Berryman on RNZ ‘Checkpoint’ yesterday, straight-up as always, no sign of arse-covering cynicism there, and (inexplicitly) answering the question of what was disappointing because inaccurate in the NZHerald’s story in the morning – there was no “forecast” of a devastating earthquake in Christchurch to withhold, there were many possibilities and no way of judging how likely was the worst case scenario, other than (very) low.
-
ChrisW, in reply to
The people of Christchurch were, therefore, told that there could be a sizeable aftershock, but not the areas where it was most likely to occur. Having emerged unscathed from the December 26 jolt in terms of lives lost, they were unaware that the worst-case scenario of the GNS provided no prospect of such a fortunate outcome being replicated. By any valid yardstick, this was wrong.
This [NZH editorial] is misleading nonsense by any yardstick. The worst-case scenario is being hit by an asteroid but GNS did not warn that there would be no prospect of no loss of life in such an event either.
GNS did not know whether the December 26 magnitude 4.9 aftershock would be followed by one as large as 6, nor where it would occur if one did or where it was most likely. The list of possible places they gave is of course a translation of 'anywhere along, around and beyond the original fault rupture'.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Good interview with GNS’s Kelvin Berryman on RNZ ‘Checkpoint’ yesterday
Ta for the heads-up. Here it is (5 mins, listening options).
The story says GNS sought government funds to map unknown faultlines but did not even receive a response (WTF?).
Berryman says that the extra information would not have helped any predictions short-term, just added geological context. He acknowledges communication could have been "more explicit" about the potential impact of the aftershock risk.
-
merc,
And aftershock risk compounded by already compromised buildings (from the previous shocks)?
-
Informed decisions about risk require both likelihood and impact to be understood, as well as what the decision-maker regards as the most important general factors (or 'values') in guiding their own decisions.
It takes much more effort to communicate those in a way that the public can engage with, rather than just the experts in relevant fields who work with them every day. You'll see much more of this in our health system as shared care approaches become widespread. Doctors, like geologists, will need help translating their expertise into a form that's independently useable by laypeople like most of us are.
That requires investment and time, so must be carefully prepared beforehand to be any use in a crisis or pressured situation. Decision aids for parents about antenatal screening for Down Syndrome are one example I've worked with myself (and it's apparently being extended beyond the Ministry of Health's typical love for pamphlets). That is touched on in a presentation about informed consent I delivered alongside colleagues to the College of GPs conference in Christchurch, the day before the first quake.
Lazy politicians are inclined to resort to "daddy knows best" paternalism to justify keeping people in the dark. For many, it's what 'leadership' means - "I'm the decider".
You could argue that the Herald has been supporting that style from this government throughout the last few years (notably the ECan takeover), which contrasts with this latest editorial's stand in favour of people making decisions for themselves. They're not correct in saying this though:
In general, the more information that is released to people in such situations, the better.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’d hazard a suggestion that wouldn’t be all that far off the Ken Ring model of earthquake risk communication.
I did wonder.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You could argue that the Herald has been supporting that style from this government throughout the last few years (notably the ECan takeover), which contrasts with this editorial’s stand in favour of people making decisions for themselves.
That's because the editorial is largely about justifying the the angle of the paper's own news stories.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Or was written by a different anonymous journo. :)
-
merc,
It's taken Herald a wee while to announce this, http://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/56296/governments-debt-manager-raises-nz900-mln-bond-auction-ahead-possible-borrowing-programm
Linked to topic due to the borrowing announced as being in part for Christchurch. -
Tangent, since this seems to be the current earthquake/christchurch thread - I had the opportunity to look around inside one of our earthquake-threatened historic places this past weekend and thought people here might be interested in the photos (and the possibility of another group visit at a later date)
-
merc,
Missed this prediction yesterday, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/christchurch/news/article.cfm?l_id=187&objectid=10759977
Statistical modelling as of last month presented by GNS Science showed that there was roughly a 14 per cent chance of another quake in the range of magnitude 6 over the following year.
It is the quakes over magnitude 6, such as that in February, have caused the death and widespread destruction in Christchurch.
"It's something we really shouldn't be living in fear of," said director of the Natural Hazards Division of GNS Science, Dr Terry Webb. -
Carol Stewart, in reply to
A very measured response, Sacha.
The Herald editorial seems pretty unfair to me. They are making the serious allegation that GNS knowingly withheld information because of 'social science advice'. This is not supported by the video records of the hearings - GNS make it clear that they had a policy of openness with their information. When they talked about the need to avoid panic, what they were specifically referring to was the fear, immediately after the Sept 4 event, that a larger magnitude event than the original event could be triggered. They considered this so improbable that they did not feel it helpful to raise it as a possibility. (note that the feb 22 event was smaller but owing to a very unlucky combination of circumstances had a greater intensity on the surface).
In hindsight, they probably wish they had done things a bit differently, but the evidence suggests that they did the best they could with the information they had available at the time, in good faith.It's important that the hard questions continue to be asked, but a L'Aquila style beat up is not something to be encouraged.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the serious allegation that GNS knowingly withheld information because of 'social science advice'
Didn't GNS say that? Like Merc above, I'd welcome more detail.
-
Sacha, in reply to
A very measured response, Sacha.
And thank you. Have learned a lot about decision support and it seems relevant here.
-
Hebe, in reply to
The "why didn't they say so" discussion does not address the core reality of an under-resourced, under-funded poor relation of a government entity suddenly having to provide cutting-edge scientific advice to the government and provide very difficult PR messages to a panicked populace with what I guess to be near-zero comms resources.
That is the scandalous aspect to me, not the poor buggers at GNS trying to do the best they can on a shoestring and some chewing gum. Now GNS are being hung out to dry at the Royal Commission.The government (of any hue) must fund GNS so it can do its job, and examine every council's hazard management plan to ensure it exists and that it is adequate.
-
merc,
"The process we have is the process that was determined as being most appropriate."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5826034/Red-zone-challenge-proposal-scrapped -
ChrisW, in reply to
It's important that the hard questions continue to be asked, but a L'Aquila style beat up is not something to be encouraged.
Exactly what I had in mind too. But the L'Aquila story on risk communication and liability is complicated too - this current Scientific American blog helpful - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/10/20/italian-seismologists-on-trial-for-failing-to-communicate-well/
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I see Gerry Brownlee's current "geodata" and the general arse-covering as relating more to the other end of the system, the impacts of those earthquakes on buildings, infrastructure and lives.
Brownlee uses the term 'geodata' with the same vagueness he displayed when referring to estimates of potential mineral wealth in the conservation estate. In the present free market scenario of post-quake 'recovery', governments appear to assume ownership of information on seismic risk, presumably because they pay for it. The argument that taxpayers have a right to information because they funded it has so far been ignored. CERA's extraordinary powers consolidate this situation. Right now, according to those who speak through Brownlee, geodata is crucial to the return - or non-return - of insurers and investors.
Fortunately your long-term optimism seems supported by the fact that we still have commissions of enquiry, and that Kelvin Berryman is free to give interviews. While I don't believe that your connecting Ford and Radley's call for greater openness on the discussion of seismic data with the Ken Ring fringe was intentionally snide, it's hardly justified by even a casual reading of their submission. I'd suggest that trust in the ultimate wisdom of governments isn't a great deal of use without a corresponding trust in the people they represent.
-
a gallimaufry up…
New Press video from inner city taken yesterday (20/10/2011).More on central city demo-looting:
Community House – “workers had stripped the building of all valuables”
and other thefts:
Police recover cathedral chalices – that no one knew were missing!and on the Suburban Red Zone:
Red Zone price challenge proposal scrapped <snap: Merc>
Unsurprisingly Brownlee says: “I’m sorry that in the heat of the moment, pressured, I said something that was not able to be delivered”.
Gerry just keep taking the hits!
while he keeps giving us the shits….re Gerry and his Geodata – I think he may be conflating his early disco days with his delusions of grandeur – and the only word that covers that is – Deodato!
OK WTF TGIF – Get down… -
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Didn't GNS say that?
Well, no, not in the way the Herald are implying.
Have a look at the recordings of the hearings, Sacha. I'm sorry I'm a bit pressed for time right now to dig out the relevant session. I think it was on the afternoon of the 18th. -
merc,
Daniel Tobin that is a brilliant video inside the red zone. So many questions I want to ask.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.